One of the mistakes the protestant reformationists (and even somtimes the RCC) does is trying to use scholasticism (human reasoning) to understand something our human minds can't comprehend or that we do not have complete revelation of. This scholasticism has led to the belief that the eucharist is merely a symbol
@Reazzurro90 Hi..you ask a good question and the answer is simple 1) Because Jesus clearly says it and 2) bread and wine can't give the forgiveness of sins...only His body and blood can do that....so he says to "eat his body and drink his blood for the forgiveness of sins.....and yes..the disciples were receving his body and blood too at the last supper before he was crucified...because that's what he told them....thanks for the quetions and comments..
@Reazzurro90 HI......well, the only explanation that we can give is the one that Jesus himself gives ...we do it to receive the forgivness of our sins, because the body that we eat and the blood which we drink is the same body and blood that he gave on the cross to earn that forgiveness by paying for our sins anc cancelling our debt of sin to God.
@Reazzurro90 Ask yourself what makes a family a family. Family will share the same flesh & blood. Christ gave us a new covenant to make us part of His people. We as a Christian Catholic body all share in the same flesh & blood as it truely becomes only His flesh & blood. We know this by His words. We can all be one just as He commanded when we come in communion to share in His Supper. Food always nourishes the body but the special meal shared in His Communion nourishes in the most spiritual way.
@catchzz Family often does not share the same flesh and blood. One example would be adoption. Another would be step-children. Family groups are defined more broadly than by same flesh and blood.
@JeffersonDinedAlone I realize that, but we are talking about a spiritual family in Christ. By consuming His flesh & blood, we as one body are united together by the same flesh & blood.
It bothers me that people who claim simple acceptance of Scripture deny this portion. Born out of simple prejudice "Rome-ophobia". If your last words to me before you knew you were about to die was "Please look after this widget with great care. I give it to you as the greatest give I will give", I'd have no right claiming to be a great admirer or disciple of yours if my response was "aww this widget is just a piece of junk. He was just kidding anyway.
Beloved Mother of the Eucharist and Grace, chosen by God to carry in Her womb His beloved Son, the host which at consecration becomes the Body and Blood of Your Son, Jesus, is just as much Your flesh and blood. We offer all our trials in reparation for the sins committed against the Holy Eucharist. Please save us from the calamities besetting our country. We beg You to intercede for us with our Lord Jesus, that we may have peace of mind and heart, peace in our family and peace in our country.
Hi..Yes..Lutherans believe in The Real Presence "in, with, and under the Bread and Wine" We ARE closer to Rome on this point than Protestants..We don't believe the Protestant "symbolism/representation"..
However, Lutherans don't believe in "consubstantiation".. Lutherans NEVER use the term..it is a term used by others (usually Protestants) to describe what THEY think Lutherans believe...We dont try to EXPLAIN this presence..we just believe it..that's why we reject "transubstantiation" too.
nschaub - So, as I understand, Lutherans believe that Jesus is present with his body and blood in with and under the bread and wine. So, the bread and wine remains and Jesus becomes present physically in them.
However, Lutherans do not believe that bread and wine become body and blood of Jesus.
Hi Pastor Lassman! What do you think of use of bells during at consecration in the Liturgy of the Eucharist in the Lutheran mass? How is the holy communion administered in your church; do you agree communion on the tongue, kneeling is to be preferred?
@karpov89 ,,,,,,,,,HI...we don't use bells at consecration (and the Lutheran Confessions make no mention of a bell a consecration) as there does not seem to be a consensus on when, the precise moment, that the bread and wine are also the Body and Blood of Jesus.....................decades ago we always communed on the tongue.....now it's more common by the hand...but some still use by the tongue...........and kneeling is preferred..............
@nschaub Thanks for the information. I agree that the Confessions do not say it is right or wrong with bells at the consecration. Good that kneeling is preferred. The most important thing is that if Intinction is used; the priest should be the one dipping the consecrated bread and not the communicant.
Yes we do, and the eucharist is a true sacrifice. I would not say that lutherans has to reject the transubstantiation, but it is not our tradition to explain the real presence. The issue of Transubtantiation is not church dividing from the catholic point of view and should not be that from the lutheran point of view either. (Read Bishofsberger's book on this subject). Do you agree with me Pastor Lassman?
Yes; and therefore the priest also in the lutheran eucharistic prayer in the mass states: [This is] the mystery of faith. An we reply: We proclaim your death and confess your resurrection until you will come back in glory (I now translated from Swedish to English).
@karpov89 The Lutheran confessions reject transubstantiation...it is not an option for a confessional Lutheran to accept or believe in transubstantiation...according to the Luthean Confessions...and the Lord's Supper is not a sacrifice...this too is rejected by the Lutheran Confessions......it is a sacrament...not a sacrifice................
@nschaub What I want to stress is that it is not the Lutheran tradition to make the interpretation of the Sacrament of the Altar as transubstantiantion. According to the Catholic Church is the Lutheran explanation of the real presence church dividing; why should then the Lutheran church today condemn the transubstantiation?!
@nschaub Well I and my church is more cautious and call it a different tradition. I mean; it is not like the baptists who claim that if you are baptised as a child you are not baptised at all.. we do both believe in the real precense.
@nschaub About the sacrifice; you must have forgotten the Church Ordinance of 1571 when Laurentius Petri was Arch Bishop of Sweden (ordinated by the Catholic bishop Petri Magni) according to which the eucharist is a sacrifice, although not a new one but the same which we receive in the wine and bread.
@karpov89 HIi..well whatever Bishop Petri said is not binding on me....and it contradicts the Confessions which is binding on me..........so I have to pick the confessions over Bishop Petri...........Could you explain to me more fully how the Sacrament is a sacrifice?
@nschaub According to article XXIV of the Apology there are two kinds of sacrifices. In the offertory we bring the bread and wine, collect (the money) and ourselfs as a sacrifice of thanksgiving. Without this sacrifice - at least the bread and wine - we can't receive the one, perfect, single, sacrifice of reconciliation - Jesus Christ!
@nschaub Well what the church says is important though and he was the Archbishop during the Reformation. But not binding, yes. In the mass (also the Lutheran mass), the last part of the Liturgy of the Word consists of the Offertory. Then we bring the gifts (the money collected) to the Altar and we prepare the gifts of the land we manage - bread and wine. That is what we sacrifice together with our prayers. To be continued..
@nschaub In return in the Liturgy of the Eucharist Jesus Christ is giving himself as a living sacrifice in the consecrated wine and bread.The one and only, perfect sacrifice which take away all the sins.
He is trying to explain the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist (even though the Luther teaching isnt completely correct). Pertaining to church history & biblical versus, the bread & wine becomes Jesus body & blood.
No wonder he sound confused as the teaching itself. Jesus in bread and wine? Hebrews 10:12 "But this man (Jesus) after He had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, SAT DOWN ON THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD."
How on earth man get power to command Jesus to come from His throne and be placed in a wafer? TRASH.
chichi2joe - When Jesus gives men the authority to call him and be present in the Eucharist, then men can call Jesus so that he is present in the Eucharist.
That is how Christians have always believed including many Protestants, until reformers like Ulrich Zwingli came and brainwashed some reformed protestants to think otherwise.
chichi2joe - the pastor said 'HI..well it started during the Reformation among the more radical reformers including such people as Ulrich Zwingli...basically they deny the real presence because of human reason..in other words, since they could not understand HOW that could be...they deniced it and make the bread and wine into symbols of the body and blood...Pastor Lassman '
Your personal fallible interpretation of the scripture is the REAL TRASH.
Pastor, I will explain and show. Yes in reserve in the Sacristy, but also on occassions on the altar, like at the meeting I attended with daily morning masses, laudes, non, completorium and people prayin all day. Then was the sacrament visible on the altar, comsumed at the next mass (without reconsecration of course) in a simple monstrance. As a visible sign of the present sacrament is a red candle light which you can se on the film I am linking.
Pastor Lassman, what do you think about Benediction of the blessed Sacrament and do you have it in your church?! I know that the mainline lutheran belief is that it should not be saved just for benediction, but it can be saved for example the purpose of sick communion - and to be benedicted before that..
HI..before I answer I must confess my ignorance about what you mean about Benediction of the Sacrament..does that mean holding it on reserve in the Sacristy??
Hi! I am still waiting for your reflections on reserving some of the blessed sacrament for adoration and praying to the Lord Jesus Christ which is truly present in the consecrated bread.
Thanks for your reply. Obviously the adoration is of Jesus Christ which is in. the bread if you ask a catholic or is in the bread if you ask a lutheran. But maybe you think that should only be done in the mass and not outside the mass.
HI..according to our Lutheran faith Jesus is to be adored...but not in the bread which is to be eaten..not adored...that's one of the differences between Roman Catholics who adore the Host and Lutherans who do not...so I don't know what the Lutheran Church in Sweden teaches..but this is my understand of Lutheranism as taught in the Book of Concord...
Hi! I am very sorry that I was inaccurate, it is not the host in itself that is adored but Jesus Christ which is in the host. But in the mass the priest elevates the consecrated host so that all can see it and adore Jesus Christ in the host. Also a remaining host (this is high church practise though, and quite uncommon) can be placed on the altar, for adoration and prayers to Jesus Christ, before it is consumed.
HI...I think I understood you correctly..but let me try again! Yes we adore Jesus Christ but No, Lutherans are not to adore Jesus IN the bread...we are not told to do that...we are to EAT it...This is a fine point but an important one..the rejection of adoration even of Christ IN the elements if the teaching of the Forumla of Concord which your church might not accept as well as the teaching of fMartin Chemnitz in his examination of the Council of Trent.
Hi again, The Formula of Concord is of course one of the documents of faith we have in the Church of Sweden, and also in the very small lutheran confessional churches (one in communion with Missouri Synod and one with Winsconsin Synod, maybe a few hundred people). But we still believe it is not wrong, although not necessary: Formula of Concord does not forbid it but says we deny one should worship the bread and wine external visible elements of the Blessed Sacrament.
HI..well, I would have to read the documents again (and I certainly don't want to be "contentious" about this
!)..but I am not sure your understanding is correct. (it is a very "subtle" point/distinction). At any rate, maybe we can both on our own look at the passages a little more carefully...blessings!
HI..well it started during the Reformation among the more radical reformers including such people as Ulrich Zwingli...basically they deny the real presence because of human reason..in other words, since they could not understand HOW that could be...they deniced it and make the bread and wine into symbols of the body and blood...Pastor Lassman
Hi..if you listened to my video presentation and the bible passages we looked at I don't see how you can say that no soul will go to heaven until the judgment day. Did you see the bible passages that talk about the soul of a believer going to heaven when we die? Pastor Lassman
There are even more serious problems with the teaching that this supposed sacrament is necessary for salvation.
•How often does one need to eat His flesh and drink His blood? He didnt say.
•Why is this supposedly soul-saving sacrament discussed in only one New Testament letter (1 Corinthians)?
•Why in the entire book of Acts, detailing the rapid growth of the church (wherein thousands of people are saved and baptized) is no one seen taking communion?
HI....Acts 2:42 is a reference to the Lord's Supper in the breaking of bread......but no other references because Acts is about evanglism..not congregational life...beises we have Jesus's words and Paul's in 1 cor....Pastor Lassman
Even at the Last Supper, after calling the cup my blood He then said this:
But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom. (Matthew 26:29)
This fruit of the vine; clearly He spoke of wine. If not, is He really saying Hell drink His own blood in heaven? Paul called it this bread twice in 1 Corinthians 11. Did he not understand?
HI....Lutherans don't deny that bread and wine remain in the Supper..only that with the bread and wine Jesus gives His body and blood.......Pastor Lassman
Martalog121: Now, I'm having difficulty keeping track of your posts, and I think we've flooded this thread thoroughly. I would sincerely appreciate you e-mailing my youtube account, and include copies of your most recent posts of the last couple days, so I can adress them directly, and in order. Finally, please explain why you think's funny when I ask which Bible you use, since Catholics regard 7 books as sacred which protestants later rejected. It's a fair question.
There's nothing in John 6 about waters coming out your belly--there's a lot about Jesus insisting that his body must be eaten and blood drank in order to have eternal life. His disciples find this difficult to accept, and many leave--why would Jesus allow people to stop believing in Him, and thus lose eternal life, if it was simply a matter of misunderstanding a metaphor?? This contradicts what Jesus also says in John 6, that He will not lose any who come to him and are sent by the Father.
1. Well, Aquinas insists that killing is evil in the Summa, but in II-ii he admits that it is a lesser evil to kill one evildoer if that person threatens the larger community of innocents, and only if this is the last possible solution--would you disagree with this logic?
2. St. Thomas More willingly died for his faith in Christ's Church rather than let it be corrupted by a syphilitic tyrant--you'd be lucky to have that kind of courage.
1. Aquinas' position is not contradictory, it's a rational argument of greater and lesser evils, supported by scripture, certainly not delusional--I'm starting to get the feeling you haven't actually read it. And even if he is wrong ultimately, which I don't think he is, that doesn't make him un-Christian, it just makes him guilty of an error, which all of us are from time to time.
2. Thomas More was opposed to corruption of all kinds in the Church--his life and writings reflect this.
Again, if Aristotelian philosophy can be used to prove tenets of Christian faith, how is that wrong? Christians and Jews both frequently appealed to pagan philosophical systems in order to defend their own beliefs--it's a fact of history.
Also, the mass existed well before Aquinas--indeed it goes back to the teachings of Christ and the early Church. It is not idolatry, it is the fulfilment of Christ's directions to the faithful and His sacrificial offering.
And again, please read the Summa first before you draw the conclusion that Aquinas is justifying rampant murder--he's not. He is, however, trying to rationalize Christian living with the protection of the innocent.
But both can and should come to the same conclusions. And again, please remember that Greek philosophic ideas are found all over the New Testament. Clearly these ideas are not in opposition to one another.
"please remember that Greek philosophic ideas are found all over the New Testament"
again,that does not mean we have to interpret/understand the Bible through Greek philosophy(as Aquinas did) first of all the Greeks were Polytheists as most of the other nations around Israel !
I don't mean that Greek philosophy is referred to--it's imbedded in the ideas of Christianity. The divine Word of God in John (logos) comes from the Greek Platonic tradition--as do many other concepts in Hebrews, Colossians etc. These ideas were alien to Israel, but prevalent in the pagan world. The writers of the NT used the language of pagan philosophy to explain God's truth. Therefore, we DO need to understand Greek philosophy if we want best to understand what the NT writers mean.
Please explain to me your understanding of logos theology before your make such a hasty retort--remember there are several words in Greek for "word"--but LOGOS means divine mind, or reason, as well as Word, which is what Christ is since he created the World --the idea of a divine word (logos) creating the world is a Platonic tradition that the audience would have been familiar with. I'm not a liberal, I'm just open to understanding the context in which the Bible was written.
"Please explain to me your understanding of logos theology before your make such a hasty retort--remember there are several words in Greek for "word"
a better translation of John 1:1 is the 'LOGIC(instead of word/idea) was with God and the LOGIC was God'
the English word logic comes from the Greek logos
again,i have to repeat myself...just because Greek was used in the NT,it does not mean we are to understand the GOD of the Bible through Greek philosophy
"Logic" works too--it's also part of logos theology. I'm not misunderstanding your words--I know that the Greek language is distinct from the philosophy. But you seem to misunderstand mine: the theological and philosophical ideas of the NT parallel in many ways contemporary Greek philosophy. We don't understand GOD through this phil., but we CAN and DO better understand the truths of scripture. It worked for me--my studies in Greek philosophy have greatly strengthened my faith in Christ.
Of course the NT has its distinct message--I don't deny that for a moment. John talks about Logos BECOMING a man, which is of course unique to Christianity. But he still builds the idea of the pre-existent Christ off of Platonic language. Note, Platonic, means it's from the school of Plato, so I'm not referring exclusively to Plato's writings, but his followers the Neo-Platonists as well--there is a vast tradition that people of the ancient world were well acquainted with.
It's not the "wrong" God--he wasn't proving the existence of Greek Gods--he proved that even if you took pagan arguments, it would lead back to a concept of the divine that was more in line with Christian teaching than with pagan beliefs. Like Paul (as you pointed out) he used Gentile teachings to refute Gentile beliefs (at his time, he was refuting Islam) and bring it back to Christ.
"It's not the "wrong" God--he wasn't proving the existence of Greek Gods" the "unmovable mover" ,in no way shape or form ,is the GOD of Abraham,Issac and Jacob !
"We believe the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ during the mass, after the act of Consecration. We follow the words of Christ as he commanded us to do."
when it comes to ecclesiastical offices,NT has only 2 (elder/overseer and deacon...NO PRIEST!) so ,you either are not aware of this little detail or you choose to ignore it(3rd and 4th explanation might be presented!)
the idea that the apostles were made "priests" at the last supper is not supported by the text of the Bible
"I noticed you haven't responded to the fact that this is supported by both Gospel and Epistle. It's also represented in the Book of Revelation (the mass and the sacrament of the eucharist)." the "unbloodied sacrifice(Eucharist) of the mass" is NOT BIBLICAL,you getting "grace" through the sacraments is just a way of keeping you going back to the mother church for 'salvation'..another unbiblical teaching!Bible teaches Salvation in a MAN(Christ) RCC teaches Salvation in an institution(itself)
Grace is given by God, Christ Jesus. The Church is His bridegroom. They are wedded to one another. It IS an "it is an institution", but it was instituted by Christ. And He instituted these sacraments--again, read the BIBLICAL verses I have shown you, then explain to me what your alternative interpretation would be.
"We come full circle: the eucharist is the body of Christ, not a symbol, not a metaphor, the real thing"
can't you be more vague?lol
when is it the body of Christ? when you put the flour and the water together,in the oven....be more specific,i'm still waiting for your take on the translation of the word Eucharist !
I never challenged your textbook definition of Eucharist--it literally means "thanksgiving". I'm not trying to be vague at all. We believe the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ during the mass, after the act of Consecration. We follow the words of Christ as he commanded us to do. I noticed you haven't responded to the fact that this is supported by both Gospel and Epistle. It's also represented in the Book of Revelation (the mass and the sacrament of the eucharist).
I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. Any biblical scholar will tell you, the Greek philosophy is present in the writing, not just the language, but the choice of language, reflecting the philosophical traditions that the NT writers were familiar with. It's pretty clear if you investigate on your own, which I encourage you to do. The number of exclamation marks you use won't change the facts of history.
No, think of Philo of Alexandria, or Origen, or Athanasius, or any of the Church fathers. . . they used Greek philosophical ideas to demonstrate the validity of Christian beliefs, not just to refute polytheism. Paul was a theologian, not a philosopher.
again,you fail to see the diff. between a 'father' /apostle using an idea(philosophical or otherwise that you also find outside the Bible) and from that fact going to prove the GOD of the Bible through Greek philosophy(as Aquina did,he proved the probability of the existence of a "unmovable mover"...that NATURAL theology ,NOT REVEALED theology!!!)
If you recall, you began this by calling Aquinas delusional--when I asked why, you said it was because he "Aristotelianized" Christianity--I've shown that Greek philosophical ideas are entrenched in the NT writings, so Aquinas didn't change anything. Further, Aquinas isn't confusing Revealed truth with his own theology, nor are we--the Church distinguishes between Revelation from God and man's philosophy. But remember, they've come to the same conclusions, so they both speak the Truth.
Now, before I go further, because this relationship seems imbalanced (you the interrogator, me answering your questions) I'd like to ask you some, and in good charity, hopefully you'll respond honestly as I have tried to do: 1) What Christian denomination are you affiliated with (so I don't make any wrong suppositions)?
2) What authority do you hold to in matters of Christian teaching and faith?
1) You worship on the Sabbath--I'm just curious, and this is not meant to sound antagonistic--do you follow all laws of the OT or just choose selectively?
2) Which Bible do you follow? The "Catholic Bible" with the so-called Apocrypha, or the "Protestant Bible" (KJV?) ?
1) Paul preached to the Gentiles that they should convert to Christianity without accepting the Old Testament Laws of Judaism, since Christ had made all anew. You can worship on the Sabbath, that's fine, but it's not a requirement any more than being circumcised, as Jesus and his apostles were. Read Galatians.
"I've shown that Greek philosophical ideas are entrenched in the NT writings, so Aquinas didn't change anything."
you've shown that Greek words were used in the writing of the NT
"But remember, they've come to the same conclusions, so they both speak the Truth."
Aquinas come to the conclusion that the existence of the 'mover'(don't confuse the 'mover' with the God of the Bible !..lol) is a probability,that's all
Aquinas begins all of his inquiries from the perspective of faith in Christ. He admits that one can never supplant the full truths of divine Revelation, but seeks to point out that, through rational philosophy, one can make reasonable claims about the existence of God and some of God's characteristics. It is not meant to replace Scripture, and he doesn't make any such pretensions.
then anachronistically RCC takes Bible verses(most of the time OUT of CONTEXT) and forces you to believe what they claim is the right interpretation,a good example is the Eucharist
today,to you the Eucharist means something to the early church meant something diff.
Wrong again, I'm afraid. See above for the Biblical proofs of how the early Church saw the Eucharist. And bear in mind, these texts reflect the tradition of the Church, not the other way around.
if you agree with the guy in the video...is it your position that when Jesus said ""take this and eat it...is my BODY...BLOOD" he(Jesus) was holding and handing the apostles a piece of his flesh and some of his fresh squeezed blood?
He didn't claim "to PROVE the God of the Bible." The "same conclusion" I referred to is that there is a creator of the universe, shown through Greek philosophical concepts, but with Christian conclusions. e.g. Unmoved mover is not anything like the Platonic God. It means a Being that doesn't HAVE to act, but does = a being that doesn't HAVE to create, but chooses to = the Christian conception of God. Amen. Greek philosophy pointed to accidental creation, or necessary creation from the Divine.
so why so 'offended' about me saying that Aquinas was 'deluded'(seen from the fact that RCC refers to him as the "angelic doctor"...and him being the author of the idolatry of the 'mass')
The mass has always been the very heart of Christianity. Read Revelation. I'd be glad to continue this discussion if you are open to discussing--your tone however suggests you aren't interested in hearing what I have to teach you. I can explain Roman Catholic teaching to you--it clearly has been misrepresented to you by someone else, as so often is the case. But first it would be helpful if you told me what Christian denomination you are from so I don't make any assumptions about your beliefs.
i was born and raised eastern Orthodox,about 3 yrs ago I've read the Bible...and everything went up !!!
as for the "your tone however suggests you aren't interested in hearing what I have to teach you",my ex wife is Catholic (i've been to many "masses"...so,i did not get second hand teachings about RCC !!!
right now i am a Bible believer(final authority for Faith and Practice is the Word of God) NOT a member of any church/denomination !!!
The eucharist is tied directly to the mass--thus it is not an anachronism to speak of the Eucharist in modern or ancient Church language. If you contend the word is misused, please cite some sources to back this up.
For future reference, one question mark or one exclamation mark will suffice. Please calm down.
"The eucharist is tied directly to the mass--thus it is not an anachronism to speak of the Eucharist in modern or ancient Church language"
i don't think you're reading my replies !
i've pointed out to you that what you(today) mean be Eucharist is NOT what an early father meant....thus you, ANACHRONISTICALLY, are imposing your definition of Eucharist on that father
get yourself a Greek dictionary and look up Eucharist(eucharisteō... that Jesus used in Matth. 26:27)
Aha! We come full circle: the eucharist is the body of Christ, not a symbol, not a metaphor, the real thing. If you find this difficult to accept, you're not alone--many of Christ's followers left him on account of this teaching (read John 6), but one who partakes in this sacramental meal in an unworthy manner (not believing it to be the body of Christ) is guilty of sin, according to St. Paul (1st Cor. 10 & 11).
For further explanation, try New Advent Encyclopedia, an online Catholic website.
Also, More was opposing a secular king's attempt to claim authority over Christ's church, when that office is reserved for those with apostolic authority. Again, I'd suggest you read up on these issues before you speak. And finally, the original context of this argument was about the real presence of Christ in the eucharist--I don't see how you've refuted that argument either, just tried to take cheap shots at men who were wiser, braver and more faithful than you appear to be.
"More was opposing a secular king's attempt to claim authority over Christ's church, when that office is reserved for those with apostolic authority."
are you by any chance talking about Matt. 16 when you think of the "office reserved for those with apostolic authority "?...CONTEXT,pay attention to the CONTEXT of Matt. 16,don't repeat the 'mantra' of Rome !!!
1. It's not a Mantra--read in context, even Protestant scholars agree that the keys of the kingdom are given to Peter--other powers are granted to the other disciples, but only the keys go to Peter.
2. Even if you don't believe in the Papacy, please honestly tell me whether or not you think Henry the VIII was a suitable candidate to lead the entire Christian population in England?
"scholars agree that the keys of the kingdom are given to Peter" WILL be given...the same scholars stopped right at Peter...no more "successors" !!!
as for Henry 'the fornicator' ,he had no right to put himself as an 'absolute' over the church of Christ the same goes for all your popes(the audacity is amazing,mere mortals TRYING to claiming divinity)
I think if you really want to get into the debate of apostolic succession, we should move it away from this thread--perhaps you could e-mail me, so I can understand your position better?
This clearly refers to the authority of God's Church--the pope himself is not divine, does not claim to be God, and is certainly not viewed that way by Catholics. He does hold a position of supreme spiritual authority above all other human spiritual leaders, but he is not considered superhuman.
"He does hold a position of supreme spiritual authority above all other human spiritual leaders"
Leo XIII said ,he (a man) is in the place of God Almighty ! is this utterance of one of the popes not clear enough for you or you can't admit the truth?
"and is certainly not viewed that way by Catholics"
you are being a bit 'liberal and heretic' better watch out !!!..lol
"I don't see how you've refuted that argument either, just tried to take cheap shots at men who were wiser, braver and more faithful than you appear to be"
me, pointing out that Aristotelian philosophy is the basis of the 'transubstantiation" is a 'cheap shot' ?as for the ad-hominems ,well i'll pretend you've never made them...lol
Fair enough-- I apologize, sincerely, for taking a shot at you. Shouldn't have done it.
The fact remains, however, that calling Aquinas deluded and un-Christian does nothing to build up your case. Explain to me how using Aristotelian philosophy to prove a tenet of faith is wrong? Bear in mind that NeoPlatonic philosophy is present in the Gospel of John and the Letter to the Hebrews, to name a few.
I would like to quote the Catechism. Not sure why I didnt before. Paragraph 1333, sentence 1 and 4
"At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christs Body and Blood."
"The signs of bread and wine become, in a way suprassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation."
Why not? It pertained to the people reading the explanation at the time, it gave them a better grasp of the Mystery, though admittedly not a full 100% grasp since no one can explain exatcly how it happens. St. Paul uses secular reasoning too in some of his epistles to better explain to his readers the gospel of Christ, I see no reason why the Catholic Church cannot do the same
Catholics dont have a forumla, just a word. We consider it one of the greatest mysteries. We just say that it somehow becomes the body and blood of wine. We dont have a scientific or philosophic formula for it.
Amen, and amen, and amen. I know we dont agree on a lot of things, being Catholic and Lutheran, but when it comes to the divinty of Jesus Christ and salvation through Him alone, and Holy Communion (except for the 'transubstantiation' difference) we agree. Thank you for sharing. The Eucharist is a clear biblical/early church teaching, backed up by OT parrallels (Exodus 12) and key Greek words (trogo) that cant help but point to the Eucharist. Martin Luther never denied it.....
Thank you pastor for your teaching. It will come as a surprise to R.C.'s that Lutherans (as well as Episcopalian/Anglicans like me) accept Real Presence, albeit not through the same theological formula as the R.C's.
I'm afraid however that Real Presence remains a "hard sell" for the Baptists and other evangelical "low church" Protestants. I wonder how they explain St.Paul's dire warning about receiving while in sin? I mean if it's only bread and a ceremony St.Paul's words are false.
And you are not as smart as you think you are. Think again. Your god loves blood, and the smell of sacrifices being burned. He can't forgive sin without having his kid commit SUICIDE first. It is a sick story of a father sending his son, to be murdered, then claiming it proves he is loving. It's nothing but a bloody bronze age mythology, right?
The shedding of blood in the old testament falls in the late bronze age.
But who cares about that, the question is why does a god capable of creating the cosmos need blood sacrifice for anything? How is the shedding of blood the logical mind set of an omni god, and not of the brutal, ignorant, and superstitious bronze age men?
Forgiveness of sins does not require blood sacrifice at all, only if the bible god is to be advertised. Sorry if you missed that, Johannine.
Good point, ComputerJa, but the bible canon itself wasn't composed until 100 AD for Judaism, and even later for Christianity. If you read the Psalms, you see reflected in there the prophetic and mystical tradition that a true sacrifice to God is not in burnt offerings but in a contrite spirit. Judaism ceased its sacrifices after the destruction of the Temple, and became a rabbinical tradition, concerned with acting for justice.
Would you please explain to me why a god capable of creating the cosmos needs blood for anything? Show me how the shedding of blood is the logical mind set of an omnipotent god, and not the mind set of brutal, ignorant, superstitious, bronze age savages. If you read the Gospels, the brimstone and the taste of bloody human sacrifices of your pagan superstition will be evident.
good video! my names Angelina, kinda feelin bored if any1 wants to join me on cam or wana chat i will be signed on at __ PLAY-CAM...dot...COM __ my user ID there is Angelina_vmjfdlbqcy chat soon xx its FR33 to j0in! mwah
such a saucy video! my names Paige, kinda feelin bored if any1 wants to join me on cam or wana chat i will be signed on at __ FriendlyFlirts(.COM) __ my user ID there is Paige_ufcgkmvort chat soon xx its FR33 to j0in! mwah
One of the mistakes the protestant reformationists (and even somtimes the RCC) does is trying to use scholasticism (human reasoning) to understand something our human minds can't comprehend or that we do not have complete revelation of. This scholasticism has led to the belief that the eucharist is merely a symbol
bob21294 5 months ago
Is this not the same as #11? Refer to my comments on "is".
JeffersonDinedAlone 7 months ago
This isn't criticism of the real presence, but I'm just wondering - why would we be consuming his body and blood? What's the purpose of that?
And were the disciples receiving his body and blood too, at the Last Supper, before he was crucified?
Reazzurro90 7 months ago
@Reazzurro90 Hi..you ask a good question and the answer is simple 1) Because Jesus clearly says it and 2) bread and wine can't give the forgiveness of sins...only His body and blood can do that....so he says to "eat his body and drink his blood for the forgiveness of sins.....and yes..the disciples were receving his body and blood too at the last supper before he was crucified...because that's what he told them....thanks for the quetions and comments..
nschaub 7 months ago
@nschaub
That makes sense. But does the Lutheran church offer an explanation as to why we consume his body and blood?
Reazzurro90 7 months ago
@Reazzurro90 HI......well, the only explanation that we can give is the one that Jesus himself gives ...we do it to receive the forgivness of our sins, because the body that we eat and the blood which we drink is the same body and blood that he gave on the cross to earn that forgiveness by paying for our sins anc cancelling our debt of sin to God.
nschaub 7 months ago
@nschaub
Thank you!
Reazzurro90 7 months ago
@Reazzurro90 Ask yourself what makes a family a family. Family will share the same flesh & blood. Christ gave us a new covenant to make us part of His people. We as a Christian Catholic body all share in the same flesh & blood as it truely becomes only His flesh & blood. We know this by His words. We can all be one just as He commanded when we come in communion to share in His Supper. Food always nourishes the body but the special meal shared in His Communion nourishes in the most spiritual way.
catchzz 7 months ago
@catchzz Family often does not share the same flesh and blood. One example would be adoption. Another would be step-children. Family groups are defined more broadly than by same flesh and blood.
JeffersonDinedAlone 7 months ago
@JeffersonDinedAlone I realize that, but we are talking about a spiritual family in Christ. By consuming His flesh & blood, we as one body are united together by the same flesh & blood.
catchzz 7 months ago
It bothers me that people who claim simple acceptance of Scripture deny this portion. Born out of simple prejudice "Rome-ophobia". If your last words to me before you knew you were about to die was "Please look after this widget with great care. I give it to you as the greatest give I will give", I'd have no right claiming to be a great admirer or disciple of yours if my response was "aww this widget is just a piece of junk. He was just kidding anyway.
God bless historic Lutheranism's stance!
ChristianEastern 11 months ago
Comment removed
Enigmatik691 1 year ago
Beloved Mother of the Eucharist and Grace, chosen by God to carry in Her womb His beloved Son, the host which at consecration becomes the Body and Blood of Your Son, Jesus, is just as much Your flesh and blood. We offer all our trials in reparation for the sins committed against the Holy Eucharist. Please save us from the calamities besetting our country. We beg You to intercede for us with our Lord Jesus, that we may have peace of mind and heart, peace in our family and peace in our country.
Christ4me2 1 year ago
What is this man talking about?
chichi2joe 2 years ago
The Lord's Supper.......
nschaub 2 years ago
Yea, but what is he trying to say?
chichi2joe 2 years ago
@nschaub - Pastor Lassman, do Lutherans believe that Jesus is present with his body in the bread and wine?
Or Jesus is only present spiritually?
I was reading the Lutheran term consubstantiation and would like to get clarifications from you.
mysteriumaenigma 2 years ago
Hi..Yes..Lutherans believe in The Real Presence "in, with, and under the Bread and Wine" We ARE closer to Rome on this point than Protestants..We don't believe the Protestant "symbolism/representation"..
However, Lutherans don't believe in "consubstantiation".. Lutherans NEVER use the term..it is a term used by others (usually Protestants) to describe what THEY think Lutherans believe...We dont try to EXPLAIN this presence..we just believe it..that's why we reject "transubstantiation" too.
nschaub 2 years ago
nschaub - So, as I understand, Lutherans believe that Jesus is present with his body and blood in with and under the bread and wine. So, the bread and wine remains and Jesus becomes present physically in them.
However, Lutherans do not believe that bread and wine become body and blood of Jesus.
Is my understanding correct?
mysteriumaenigma 1 year ago
HI..actually you want me, Pastor Lassman. Nschaub produced the video..and it appears that you understand correctly........
nschaub 1 year ago
nschaub - Ok now I understand why the term co substantiation is used to explain the Lutheran understanding.
I also understand that Lutherans to not accept the term co substantiation as they do not wish to explain the real presence of Jesus.
Thanks for the clarification.
mysteriumaenigma 1 year ago
you got it...you are welcome...
nschaub 1 year ago
Hi Pastor Lassman! What do you think of use of bells during at consecration in the Liturgy of the Eucharist in the Lutheran mass? How is the holy communion administered in your church; do you agree communion on the tongue, kneeling is to be preferred?
karpov89 1 year ago
@karpov89 ,,,,,,,,,HI...we don't use bells at consecration (and the Lutheran Confessions make no mention of a bell a consecration) as there does not seem to be a consensus on when, the precise moment, that the bread and wine are also the Body and Blood of Jesus.....................decades ago we always communed on the tongue.....now it's more common by the hand...but some still use by the tongue...........and kneeling is preferred..............
nschaub 1 year ago
@nschaub Thanks for the information. I agree that the Confessions do not say it is right or wrong with bells at the consecration. Good that kneeling is preferred. The most important thing is that if Intinction is used; the priest should be the one dipping the consecrated bread and not the communicant.
karpov89 1 year ago
Yes we do, and the eucharist is a true sacrifice. I would not say that lutherans has to reject the transubstantiation, but it is not our tradition to explain the real presence. The issue of Transubtantiation is not church dividing from the catholic point of view and should not be that from the lutheran point of view either. (Read Bishofsberger's book on this subject). Do you agree with me Pastor Lassman?
karpov89 2 years ago
@karpov89 - Thanks for the answer. I think important thing is to believe in the real presence.
Trying to explain it is not that important. Orthodox churches also do not try to explain it.
mysteriumaenigma 2 years ago
Yes; and therefore the priest also in the lutheran eucharistic prayer in the mass states: [This is] the mystery of faith. An we reply: We proclaim your death and confess your resurrection until you will come back in glory (I now translated from Swedish to English).
karpov89 2 years ago
@karpov89 The Lutheran confessions reject transubstantiation...it is not an option for a confessional Lutheran to accept or believe in transubstantiation...according to the Luthean Confessions...and the Lord's Supper is not a sacrifice...this too is rejected by the Lutheran Confessions......it is a sacrament...not a sacrifice................
nschaub 1 year ago
@nschaub What I want to stress is that it is not the Lutheran tradition to make the interpretation of the Sacrament of the Altar as transubstantiantion. According to the Catholic Church is the Lutheran explanation of the real presence church dividing; why should then the Lutheran church today condemn the transubstantiation?!
karpov89 1 year ago
@karpov89 Because transubstantian is false doctrine
nschaub 1 year ago
@nschaub Well I and my church is more cautious and call it a different tradition. I mean; it is not like the baptists who claim that if you are baptised as a child you are not baptised at all.. we do both believe in the real precense.
karpov89 1 year ago
@nschaub Maybe...or just using different words to explain it..like the question about Filioque and the Monofysite churches, Nature of Christ.
karpov89 1 year ago
Comment removed
Enigmatik691 1 year ago
@nschaub False??? so your majesty decided that it was false?? IGNORANCE and ARROGANCE goes well together dont they?
Enigmatik691 1 year ago
@nschaub About the sacrifice; you must have forgotten the Church Ordinance of 1571 when Laurentius Petri was Arch Bishop of Sweden (ordinated by the Catholic bishop Petri Magni) according to which the eucharist is a sacrifice, although not a new one but the same which we receive in the wine and bread.
karpov89 1 year ago
@karpov89 HIi..well whatever Bishop Petri said is not binding on me....and it contradicts the Confessions which is binding on me..........so I have to pick the confessions over Bishop Petri...........Could you explain to me more fully how the Sacrament is a sacrifice?
nschaub 1 year ago
@nschaub According to article XXIV of the Apology there are two kinds of sacrifices. In the offertory we bring the bread and wine, collect (the money) and ourselfs as a sacrifice of thanksgiving. Without this sacrifice - at least the bread and wine - we can't receive the one, perfect, single, sacrifice of reconciliation - Jesus Christ!
karpov89 1 year ago
@nschaub Well what the church says is important though and he was the Archbishop during the Reformation. But not binding, yes. In the mass (also the Lutheran mass), the last part of the Liturgy of the Word consists of the Offertory. Then we bring the gifts (the money collected) to the Altar and we prepare the gifts of the land we manage - bread and wine. That is what we sacrifice together with our prayers. To be continued..
karpov89 1 year ago
@nschaub In return in the Liturgy of the Eucharist Jesus Christ is giving himself as a living sacrifice in the consecrated wine and bread.The one and only, perfect sacrifice which take away all the sins.
karpov89 1 year ago
He is trying to explain the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist (even though the Luther teaching isnt completely correct). Pertaining to church history & biblical versus, the bread & wine becomes Jesus body & blood.
catchzz 2 years ago
chichi2joe - This man is talking about the real presence of Jesus in bread and wine which you radical reformed Protestants deny.
mysteriumaenigma 2 years ago
mysterium:
No wonder he sound confused as the teaching itself. Jesus in bread and wine? Hebrews 10:12 "But this man (Jesus) after He had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, SAT DOWN ON THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD."
How on earth man get power to command Jesus to come from His throne and be placed in a wafer? TRASH.
chichi2joe 2 years ago
chichi2joe - When Jesus gives men the authority to call him and be present in the Eucharist, then men can call Jesus so that he is present in the Eucharist.
That is how Christians have always believed including many Protestants, until reformers like Ulrich Zwingli came and brainwashed some reformed protestants to think otherwise.
mysteriumaenigma 2 years ago
chichi2joe - the pastor said 'HI..well it started during the Reformation among the more radical reformers including such people as Ulrich Zwingli...basically they deny the real presence because of human reason..in other words, since they could not understand HOW that could be...they deniced it and make the bread and wine into symbols of the body and blood...Pastor Lassman '
Your personal fallible interpretation of the scripture is the REAL TRASH.
mysteriumaenigma 2 years ago
The clip is Stilla mässa vid Oasmötet i Borås - Low mass the Benedictine Lutheran way.
The sacrament is also visible in the recessional (especially at the end) at:
Festhögmässan vid Oasrörelsens sommarmöte i Borås 2009 del 15
karpov89 2 years ago
Pastor, I will explain and show. Yes in reserve in the Sacristy, but also on occassions on the altar, like at the meeting I attended with daily morning masses, laudes, non, completorium and people prayin all day. Then was the sacrament visible on the altar, comsumed at the next mass (without reconsecration of course) in a simple monstrance. As a visible sign of the present sacrament is a red candle light which you can se on the film I am linking.
karpov89 2 years ago
Pastor Lassman, what do you think about Benediction of the blessed Sacrament and do you have it in your church?! I know that the mainline lutheran belief is that it should not be saved just for benediction, but it can be saved for example the purpose of sick communion - and to be benedicted before that..
karpov89 2 years ago
HI..before I answer I must confess my ignorance about what you mean about Benediction of the Sacrament..does that mean holding it on reserve in the Sacristy??
nschaub 2 years ago
Hi! I am still waiting for your reflections on reserving some of the blessed sacrament for adoration and praying to the Lord Jesus Christ which is truly present in the consecrated bread.
karpov89 2 years ago
Hi ..if you are asking if it is proper to adore the consecrated bread or to pray to the consecrated bread the answer is "no"
nschaub 2 years ago
Thanks for your reply. Obviously the adoration is of Jesus Christ which is in. the bread if you ask a catholic or is in the bread if you ask a lutheran. But maybe you think that should only be done in the mass and not outside the mass.
karpov89 2 years ago
HI..according to our Lutheran faith Jesus is to be adored...but not in the bread which is to be eaten..not adored...that's one of the differences between Roman Catholics who adore the Host and Lutherans who do not...so I don't know what the Lutheran Church in Sweden teaches..but this is my understand of Lutheranism as taught in the Book of Concord...
nschaub 2 years ago
Hi! I am very sorry that I was inaccurate, it is not the host in itself that is adored but Jesus Christ which is in the host. But in the mass the priest elevates the consecrated host so that all can see it and adore Jesus Christ in the host. Also a remaining host (this is high church practise though, and quite uncommon) can be placed on the altar, for adoration and prayers to Jesus Christ, before it is consumed.
karpov89 2 years ago
HI...I think I understood you correctly..but let me try again! Yes we adore Jesus Christ but No, Lutherans are not to adore Jesus IN the bread...we are not told to do that...we are to EAT it...This is a fine point but an important one..the rejection of adoration even of Christ IN the elements if the teaching of the Forumla of Concord which your church might not accept as well as the teaching of fMartin Chemnitz in his examination of the Council of Trent.
nschaub 2 years ago
Hi again, The Formula of Concord is of course one of the documents of faith we have in the Church of Sweden, and also in the very small lutheran confessional churches (one in communion with Missouri Synod and one with Winsconsin Synod, maybe a few hundred people). But we still believe it is not wrong, although not necessary: Formula of Concord does not forbid it but says we deny one should worship the bread and wine external visible elements of the Blessed Sacrament.
karpov89 2 years ago
HI..well, I would have to read the documents again (and I certainly don't want to be "contentious" about this
!)..but I am not sure your understanding is correct. (it is a very "subtle" point/distinction). At any rate, maybe we can both on our own look at the passages a little more carefully...blessings!
nschaub 2 years ago
Thanks, I am already looking myself..God bless!
karpov89 2 years ago
Why did lots of people stop beleiving Jesus' presence in bread and wine.
mysteriumaenigma 2 years ago
HI..well it started during the Reformation among the more radical reformers including such people as Ulrich Zwingli...basically they deny the real presence because of human reason..in other words, since they could not understand HOW that could be...they deniced it and make the bread and wine into symbols of the body and blood...Pastor Lassman
nschaub 2 years ago
No soul will go to Heaven until the final judgement day.
mysteriumaenigma 2 years ago
Hi..if you listened to my video presentation and the bible passages we looked at I don't see how you can say that no soul will go to heaven until the judgment day. Did you see the bible passages that talk about the soul of a believer going to heaven when we die? Pastor Lassman
nschaub 2 years ago
There are even more serious problems with the teaching that this supposed sacrament is necessary for salvation.
•How often does one need to eat His flesh and drink His blood? He didnt say.
•Why is this supposedly soul-saving sacrament discussed in only one New Testament letter (1 Corinthians)?
•Why in the entire book of Acts, detailing the rapid growth of the church (wherein thousands of people are saved and baptized) is no one seen taking communion?
catholicexodus 2 years ago
HI....Acts 2:42 is a reference to the Lord's Supper in the breaking of bread......but no other references because Acts is about evanglism..not congregational life...beises we have Jesus's words and Paul's in 1 cor....Pastor Lassman
nschaub 2 years ago
I do not know how much more clear Jesus could have been in John 6:5356.
catchzz 2 years ago
Even at the Last Supper, after calling the cup my blood He then said this:
But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom. (Matthew 26:29)
This fruit of the vine; clearly He spoke of wine. If not, is He really saying Hell drink His own blood in heaven? Paul called it this bread twice in 1 Corinthians 11. Did he not understand?
catholicexodus 2 years ago
HI....Lutherans don't deny that bread and wine remain in the Supper..only that with the bread and wine Jesus gives His body and blood.......Pastor Lassman
nschaub 2 years ago
Martalog121: Now, I'm having difficulty keeping track of your posts, and I think we've flooded this thread thoroughly. I would sincerely appreciate you e-mailing my youtube account, and include copies of your most recent posts of the last couple days, so I can adress them directly, and in order. Finally, please explain why you think's funny when I ask which Bible you use, since Catholics regard 7 books as sacred which protestants later rejected. It's a fair question.
johannine 2 years ago
Aha, thanks. I was in this same debate in another thread and referenced John 7 when I meant John 6--seems to be a common mistake, hahaha.
johannine 2 years ago
There's nothing in John 6 about waters coming out your belly--there's a lot about Jesus insisting that his body must be eaten and blood drank in order to have eternal life. His disciples find this difficult to accept, and many leave--why would Jesus allow people to stop believing in Him, and thus lose eternal life, if it was simply a matter of misunderstanding a metaphor?? This contradicts what Jesus also says in John 6, that He will not lose any who come to him and are sent by the Father.
johannine 2 years ago
Sorry, friend, I must be missing something here--explain the mossy navel bit to me, please?
johannine 2 years ago
Sheep have wool, friend, not fur. Get your imagery straight.
johannine 2 years ago
how about Aristotelian philosophy?be honest and tell the truth,that's how that deluded Aquinas got the 'transubstantiation'....
martalog121 2 years ago
Tell me you didn't just call one of the most brilliant Christian minds in history "deluded" . . . ?
johannine 2 years ago
i did,because he(Thomas Aquinas) WAS a "deluded" man...not even a Christian !
martalog121 2 years ago
Wow, I'm not sure where to begin here. Start by please giving me an example that in your mind proves his delusion or his lack of Christian faith.
johannine 2 years ago
the "killing of heretics" ?
i don't recall Jesus Christ teaching or even alluding to the killing of anyone !
martalog121 2 years ago
Are you sure you're not thinking of St. Thomas More?
johannine 2 years ago
you might want to read some of the 'Summa Theologica"
as for Thomas More,i think you went to far by calling him a saint...lol
martalog121 2 years ago
1. Well, Aquinas insists that killing is evil in the Summa, but in II-ii he admits that it is a lesser evil to kill one evildoer if that person threatens the larger community of innocents, and only if this is the last possible solution--would you disagree with this logic?
2. St. Thomas More willingly died for his faith in Christ's Church rather than let it be corrupted by a syphilitic tyrant--you'd be lucky to have that kind of courage.
johannine 2 years ago
1. so he was deluded,talking from both sides of his mouth...if you knew about his self contradiction(Aquina's) why so "surprised" about my remark???
2.got a taste of his own medicine,as for the "corruption" it had been going on for centuries,and i do NOT believe in "luck" !!!
martalog121 2 years ago
1. Aquinas' position is not contradictory, it's a rational argument of greater and lesser evils, supported by scripture, certainly not delusional--I'm starting to get the feeling you haven't actually read it. And even if he is wrong ultimately, which I don't think he is, that doesn't make him un-Christian, it just makes him guilty of an error, which all of us are from time to time.
2. Thomas More was opposed to corruption of all kinds in the Church--his life and writings reflect this.
johannine 2 years ago
"it's a rational argument of greater and lesser evils, supported by scripture"
where is Jesus Christ "supporting" the "killing" of anyone?
your so called "doctor"(T. Aquinas) aristotelized Christianity,is that simple.Natural theology works that way...
"And even if he is wrong ultimately..."
there is no IF,Aquinas WAS wrong and thank to him you have the IDOLATRY of the "mass" !!!
martalog121 2 years ago
Again, if Aristotelian philosophy can be used to prove tenets of Christian faith, how is that wrong? Christians and Jews both frequently appealed to pagan philosophical systems in order to defend their own beliefs--it's a fact of history.
Also, the mass existed well before Aquinas--indeed it goes back to the teachings of Christ and the early Church. It is not idolatry, it is the fulfilment of Christ's directions to the faithful and His sacrificial offering.
johannine 2 years ago
And again, please read the Summa first before you draw the conclusion that Aquinas is justifying rampant murder--he's not. He is, however, trying to rationalize Christian living with the protection of the innocent.
johannine 2 years ago
"And again, please read the Summa first before you draw the conclusion..."
i've read enough to know that is just a philosophy(Greek mostly) , Natural theology is not the norm when it comes to the Bible!
the Bible starts with GOD,natural theology starts with MAN(oranges and apples)
martalog121 2 years ago
But both can and should come to the same conclusions. And again, please remember that Greek philosophic ideas are found all over the New Testament. Clearly these ideas are not in opposition to one another.
johannine 2 years ago
"please remember that Greek philosophic ideas are found all over the New Testament"
again,that does not mean we have to interpret/understand the Bible through Greek philosophy(as Aquinas did) first of all the Greeks were Polytheists as most of the other nations around Israel !
martalog121 2 years ago
I don't mean that Greek philosophy is referred to--it's imbedded in the ideas of Christianity. The divine Word of God in John (logos) comes from the Greek Platonic tradition--as do many other concepts in Hebrews, Colossians etc. These ideas were alien to Israel, but prevalent in the pagan world. The writers of the NT used the language of pagan philosophy to explain God's truth. Therefore, we DO need to understand Greek philosophy if we want best to understand what the NT writers mean.
johannine 2 years ago
"The divine Word of God in John (logos) comes from the Greek Platonic tradition"
what?because John wrote the Greek word Logos ,that makes him a Platonist,you got to be kidding me,right?...i see,just another 'liberal',to bad !
martalog121 2 years ago
Please explain to me your understanding of logos theology before your make such a hasty retort--remember there are several words in Greek for "word"--but LOGOS means divine mind, or reason, as well as Word, which is what Christ is since he created the World --the idea of a divine word (logos) creating the world is a Platonic tradition that the audience would have been familiar with. I'm not a liberal, I'm just open to understanding the context in which the Bible was written.
johannine 2 years ago
"Please explain to me your understanding of logos theology before your make such a hasty retort--remember there are several words in Greek for "word"
a better translation of John 1:1 is the 'LOGIC(instead of word/idea) was with God and the LOGIC was God'
the English word logic comes from the Greek logos
again,i have to repeat myself...just because Greek was used in the NT,it does not mean we are to understand the GOD of the Bible through Greek philosophy
martalog121 2 years ago
"Logic" works too--it's also part of logos theology. I'm not misunderstanding your words--I know that the Greek language is distinct from the philosophy. But you seem to misunderstand mine: the theological and philosophical ideas of the NT parallel in many ways contemporary Greek philosophy. We don't understand GOD through this phil., but we CAN and DO better understand the truths of scripture. It worked for me--my studies in Greek philosophy have greatly strengthened my faith in Christ.
johannine 2 years ago
"I know that the Greek language is distinct from the philosophy"
but you said that :"I've shown that Greek philosophical ideas are entrenched in the NT writings"
and i've pointed out that is not true...Plato talked about Logos as an Abstract definition of A "divinity"
John talked about Logos being a MAN and a very specific "divinity"(the one and only TRUE GOD)
martalog121 2 years ago
Of course the NT has its distinct message--I don't deny that for a moment. John talks about Logos BECOMING a man, which is of course unique to Christianity. But he still builds the idea of the pre-existent Christ off of Platonic language. Note, Platonic, means it's from the school of Plato, so I'm not referring exclusively to Plato's writings, but his followers the Neo-Platonists as well--there is a vast tradition that people of the ancient world were well acquainted with.
johannine 2 years ago
"talks about Logos BECOMING a man, which is of course unique to Christianity."
so,why going to defend Aquinas?(as i've mentioned he proved the WRONG god,because he relied on Greek philosophy mostly,)
Natural theology starts with man(Aquinas and Aristotle and the like) trying to prove God
Revealed Theology starts with God(Bible...in "the beginning GOD....")
martalog121 2 years ago
It's not the "wrong" God--he wasn't proving the existence of Greek Gods--he proved that even if you took pagan arguments, it would lead back to a concept of the divine that was more in line with Christian teaching than with pagan beliefs. Like Paul (as you pointed out) he used Gentile teachings to refute Gentile beliefs (at his time, he was refuting Islam) and bring it back to Christ.
johannine 2 years ago
"It's not the "wrong" God--he wasn't proving the existence of Greek Gods" the "unmovable mover" ,in no way shape or form ,is the GOD of Abraham,Issac and Jacob !
martalog121 2 years ago
"We believe the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ during the mass, after the act of Consecration. We follow the words of Christ as he commanded us to do."
when it comes to ecclesiastical offices,NT has only 2 (elder/overseer and deacon...NO PRIEST!) so ,you either are not aware of this little detail or you choose to ignore it(3rd and 4th explanation might be presented!)
the idea that the apostles were made "priests" at the last supper is not supported by the text of the Bible
martalog121 2 years ago
"I noticed you haven't responded to the fact that this is supported by both Gospel and Epistle. It's also represented in the Book of Revelation (the mass and the sacrament of the eucharist)." the "unbloodied sacrifice(Eucharist) of the mass" is NOT BIBLICAL,you getting "grace" through the sacraments is just a way of keeping you going back to the mother church for 'salvation'..another unbiblical teaching!Bible teaches Salvation in a MAN(Christ) RCC teaches Salvation in an institution(itself)
martalog121 2 years ago
Grace is given by God, Christ Jesus. The Church is His bridegroom. They are wedded to one another. It IS an "it is an institution", but it was instituted by Christ. And He instituted these sacraments--again, read the BIBLICAL verses I have shown you, then explain to me what your alternative interpretation would be.
johannine 2 years ago
"And He instituted these sacraments--again, read the BIBLICAL verses"
which ones?lets get to specifics...
martalog121 2 years ago
"We come full circle: the eucharist is the body of Christ, not a symbol, not a metaphor, the real thing"
can't you be more vague?lol
when is it the body of Christ? when you put the flour and the water together,in the oven....be more specific,i'm still waiting for your take on the translation of the word Eucharist !
martalog121 2 years ago
I never challenged your textbook definition of Eucharist--it literally means "thanksgiving". I'm not trying to be vague at all. We believe the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ during the mass, after the act of Consecration. We follow the words of Christ as he commanded us to do. I noticed you haven't responded to the fact that this is supported by both Gospel and Epistle. It's also represented in the Book of Revelation (the mass and the sacrament of the eucharist).
johannine 2 years ago
"The writers of the NT used the language of pagan philosophy to explain God's truth."
NO,they used the Greek LANGUAGE(without the philosophy part!!!!!) to bring the 'gentiles' to the GOD of the Jews !!!
martalog121 2 years ago
I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. Any biblical scholar will tell you, the Greek philosophy is present in the writing, not just the language, but the choice of language, reflecting the philosophical traditions that the NT writers were familiar with. It's pretty clear if you investigate on your own, which I encourage you to do. The number of exclamation marks you use won't change the facts of history.
johannine 2 years ago
"Any biblical scholar will tell you, the Greek philosophy is present in the writing, "
liberal scholar,right?i'm aware of that !almost all of them will say that ...Christianity and its Greek/pagan roots
martalog121 2 years ago
'Christians and Jews both frequently appealed to pagan philosophical systems in order to defend their own beliefs--it's a fact of history."
Paul used their(Greeks) beliefs to refute them !
martalog121 2 years ago
No, think of Philo of Alexandria, or Origen, or Athanasius, or any of the Church fathers. . . they used Greek philosophical ideas to demonstrate the validity of Christian beliefs, not just to refute polytheism. Paul was a theologian, not a philosopher.
johannine 2 years ago
again,you fail to see the diff. between a 'father' /apostle using an idea(philosophical or otherwise that you also find outside the Bible) and from that fact going to prove the GOD of the Bible through Greek philosophy(as Aquina did,he proved the probability of the existence of a "unmovable mover"...that NATURAL theology ,NOT REVEALED theology!!!)
martalog121 2 years ago
If you recall, you began this by calling Aquinas delusional--when I asked why, you said it was because he "Aristotelianized" Christianity--I've shown that Greek philosophical ideas are entrenched in the NT writings, so Aquinas didn't change anything. Further, Aquinas isn't confusing Revealed truth with his own theology, nor are we--the Church distinguishes between Revelation from God and man's philosophy. But remember, they've come to the same conclusions, so they both speak the Truth.
johannine 2 years ago
"I've shown that Greek philosophical ideas are entrenched in the NT writings"
you've said that the word 'logos' was used by Plato...as an idea("divine word")
John used the' logos' and said that the logos is actually a MAN(Jesus Christ),now can you see the diff. between Plato and John ?
as for Aquinas,he proved the existence of a god(the "unmovable mover"...which of course is not the GOD of the Bible!)
martalog121 2 years ago
Now, before I go further, because this relationship seems imbalanced (you the interrogator, me answering your questions) I'd like to ask you some, and in good charity, hopefully you'll respond honestly as I have tried to do: 1) What Christian denomination are you affiliated with (so I don't make any wrong suppositions)?
2) What authority do you hold to in matters of Christian teaching and faith?
johannine 2 years ago
1)i'm NOT a member of any denomination,i worship on the Sabbath with a small group(home church) of people that have the same Faith that i do
2)the Bible is my Final Authority for Faith and Practice
martalog121 2 years ago
1) You worship on the Sabbath--I'm just curious, and this is not meant to sound antagonistic--do you follow all laws of the OT or just choose selectively?
2) Which Bible do you follow? The "Catholic Bible" with the so-called Apocrypha, or the "Protestant Bible" (KJV?) ?
johannine 2 years ago
1) NO,"choose selectively"?Jesus Christ and the apostles kept the Sabbath,so that's good enough for me!
2)very funny !
martalog121 2 years ago
1) Paul preached to the Gentiles that they should convert to Christianity without accepting the Old Testament Laws of Judaism, since Christ had made all anew. You can worship on the Sabbath, that's fine, but it's not a requirement any more than being circumcised, as Jesus and his apostles were. Read Galatians.
johannine 2 years ago
"You can worship on the Sabbath, that's fine, but it's not a requirement any more than being circumcised, as Jesus and his apostles were"
i've never said that it was a requirement! what's your point?
martalog121 2 years ago
Comment removed
johannine 2 years ago
"I've shown that Greek philosophical ideas are entrenched in the NT writings, so Aquinas didn't change anything."
you've shown that Greek words were used in the writing of the NT
"But remember, they've come to the same conclusions, so they both speak the Truth."
Aquinas come to the conclusion that the existence of the 'mover'(don't confuse the 'mover' with the God of the Bible !..lol) is a probability,that's all
martalog121 2 years ago
Aquinas begins all of his inquiries from the perspective of faith in Christ. He admits that one can never supplant the full truths of divine Revelation, but seeks to point out that, through rational philosophy, one can make reasonable claims about the existence of God and some of God's characteristics. It is not meant to replace Scripture, and he doesn't make any such pretensions.
johannine 2 years ago
"through rational philosophy, one can make reasonable claims about the existence of God and some of God's characteristics"
he ended up proving the PROBABILITY of the existence of A "unmovable mover" stop saying that Aquinas proved the GOD of the Bible !
"It is not meant to replace Scripture, and he doesn't make any such pretensions."
but it does ,the whole concept of the sacramental system of RCC is based on Aquinas teachings!
martalog121 2 years ago
cont.
then anachronistically RCC takes Bible verses(most of the time OUT of CONTEXT) and forces you to believe what they claim is the right interpretation,a good example is the Eucharist
today,to you the Eucharist means something to the early church meant something diff.
martalog121 2 years ago
Wrong again, I'm afraid. See above for the Biblical proofs of how the early Church saw the Eucharist. And bear in mind, these texts reflect the tradition of the Church, not the other way around.
johannine 2 years ago
if you agree with the guy in the video...is it your position that when Jesus said ""take this and eat it...is my BODY...BLOOD" he(Jesus) was holding and handing the apostles a piece of his flesh and some of his fresh squeezed blood?
martalog121 2 years ago
The mystery is that HE is fully present in the bread and wine. No more an incredible claim than to say God took on human form.
johannine 2 years ago
He didn't claim "to PROVE the God of the Bible." The "same conclusion" I referred to is that there is a creator of the universe, shown through Greek philosophical concepts, but with Christian conclusions. e.g. Unmoved mover is not anything like the Platonic God. It means a Being that doesn't HAVE to act, but does = a being that doesn't HAVE to create, but chooses to = the Christian conception of God. Amen. Greek philosophy pointed to accidental creation, or necessary creation from the Divine.
johannine 2 years ago
"He didn't claim "to PROVE the God of the Bible"
so why so 'offended' about me saying that Aquinas was 'deluded'(seen from the fact that RCC refers to him as the "angelic doctor"...and him being the author of the idolatry of the 'mass')
martalog121 2 years ago
"before you draw the conclusion that Aquinas is justifying rampant murder--he's not." i did not ,i've ,specifically, said "killing of heretics"
stop it with the " Red herring" (logical fallacy)
martalog121 2 years ago
"Also, the mass existed well before Aquinas--indeed it goes back to the teachings of Christ and the early Church."
in the early church(and in the Bible) the 'Eucharist' meant THANK-offering,today RCC made the 'Eucharist' SACRIFICE-offering
you, as many of the Catholics, anachronistically put the 2 diff. meanings together...they are NOT the same !!!
martalog121 2 years ago
The mass has always been the very heart of Christianity. Read Revelation. I'd be glad to continue this discussion if you are open to discussing--your tone however suggests you aren't interested in hearing what I have to teach you. I can explain Roman Catholic teaching to you--it clearly has been misrepresented to you by someone else, as so often is the case. But first it would be helpful if you told me what Christian denomination you are from so I don't make any assumptions about your beliefs.
johannine 2 years ago
i was born and raised eastern Orthodox,about 3 yrs ago I've read the Bible...and everything went up !!!
as for the "your tone however suggests you aren't interested in hearing what I have to teach you",my ex wife is Catholic (i've been to many "masses"...so,i did not get second hand teachings about RCC !!!
right now i am a Bible believer(final authority for Faith and Practice is the Word of God) NOT a member of any church/denomination !!!
martalog121 2 years ago
"The mass has always been the very heart of Christianity. Read Revelation"
i've asserted something about the anachronistic usage of the word Eucharist by RCC and you
care to acknowledge that ???
martalog121 2 years ago
The eucharist is tied directly to the mass--thus it is not an anachronism to speak of the Eucharist in modern or ancient Church language. If you contend the word is misused, please cite some sources to back this up.
For future reference, one question mark or one exclamation mark will suffice. Please calm down.
johannine 2 years ago
"The eucharist is tied directly to the mass--thus it is not an anachronism to speak of the Eucharist in modern or ancient Church language"
i don't think you're reading my replies !
i've pointed out to you that what you(today) mean be Eucharist is NOT what an early father meant....thus you, ANACHRONISTICALLY, are imposing your definition of Eucharist on that father
get yourself a Greek dictionary and look up Eucharist(eucharisteō... that Jesus used in Matth. 26:27)
martalog121 2 years ago
We aren't imposing any definition--the eucharist as we understand it today is the same as it was understood in the beginning of the Church.
johannine 2 years ago
"We aren't imposing any definition--the eucharist as we understand it today is the same as it was understood in the beginning of the Church."
could you ,please,give me the definition of the Eucharist as you understand it today?
martalog121 2 years ago
Aha! We come full circle: the eucharist is the body of Christ, not a symbol, not a metaphor, the real thing. If you find this difficult to accept, you're not alone--many of Christ's followers left him on account of this teaching (read John 6), but one who partakes in this sacramental meal in an unworthy manner (not believing it to be the body of Christ) is guilty of sin, according to St. Paul (1st Cor. 10 & 11).
For further explanation, try New Advent Encyclopedia, an online Catholic website.
johannine 2 years ago
Also, More was opposing a secular king's attempt to claim authority over Christ's church, when that office is reserved for those with apostolic authority. Again, I'd suggest you read up on these issues before you speak. And finally, the original context of this argument was about the real presence of Christ in the eucharist--I don't see how you've refuted that argument either, just tried to take cheap shots at men who were wiser, braver and more faithful than you appear to be.
johannine 2 years ago
"More was opposing a secular king's attempt to claim authority over Christ's church, when that office is reserved for those with apostolic authority."
are you by any chance talking about Matt. 16 when you think of the "office reserved for those with apostolic authority "?...CONTEXT,pay attention to the CONTEXT of Matt. 16,don't repeat the 'mantra' of Rome !!!
martalog121 2 years ago
1. It's not a Mantra--read in context, even Protestant scholars agree that the keys of the kingdom are given to Peter--other powers are granted to the other disciples, but only the keys go to Peter.
2. Even if you don't believe in the Papacy, please honestly tell me whether or not you think Henry the VIII was a suitable candidate to lead the entire Christian population in England?
johannine 2 years ago
"scholars agree that the keys of the kingdom are given to Peter" WILL be given...the same scholars stopped right at Peter...no more "successors" !!!
as for Henry 'the fornicator' ,he had no right to put himself as an 'absolute' over the church of Christ the same goes for all your popes(the audacity is amazing,mere mortals TRYING to claiming divinity)
martalog121 2 years ago
I think if you really want to get into the debate of apostolic succession, we should move it away from this thread--perhaps you could e-mail me, so I can understand your position better?
johannine 2 years ago
"I think if you really want to get into the debate of apostolic succession"
well,go ahead prove your case for the papacy(the succession of the popes..)
historically,you CAN'T,so amuse me..lol
martalog121 2 years ago
The pope doesn't claim to be divine, ever. Glad we at least agree on Henry VIII.
johannine 2 years ago
"The pope doesn't claim to be divine, ever."
really?explain to me how do you understand LeoXIII,when he said :
"we hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty"
(The Great Encyclical Letters pg. 304)
martalog121 2 years ago
This clearly refers to the authority of God's Church--the pope himself is not divine, does not claim to be God, and is certainly not viewed that way by Catholics. He does hold a position of supreme spiritual authority above all other human spiritual leaders, but he is not considered superhuman.
johannine 2 years ago
"He does hold a position of supreme spiritual authority above all other human spiritual leaders"
Leo XIII said ,he (a man) is in the place of God Almighty ! is this utterance of one of the popes not clear enough for you or you can't admit the truth?
"and is certainly not viewed that way by Catholics"
you are being a bit 'liberal and heretic' better watch out !!!..lol
martalog121 2 years ago
"I don't see how you've refuted that argument either, just tried to take cheap shots at men who were wiser, braver and more faithful than you appear to be"
me, pointing out that Aristotelian philosophy is the basis of the 'transubstantiation" is a 'cheap shot' ?as for the ad-hominems ,well i'll pretend you've never made them...lol
martalog121 2 years ago
Fair enough-- I apologize, sincerely, for taking a shot at you. Shouldn't have done it.
The fact remains, however, that calling Aquinas deluded and un-Christian does nothing to build up your case. Explain to me how using Aristotelian philosophy to prove a tenet of faith is wrong? Bear in mind that NeoPlatonic philosophy is present in the Gospel of John and the Letter to the Hebrews, to name a few.
johannine 2 years ago
"Explain to me how using Aristotelian philosophy to prove a tenet of faith is wrong"
where did you get the idea that Greek philosophy is the 'measuring stick' when it comes to the Bible?
martalog121 2 years ago
I didn't say it was--it is used to explain by reason what is understood by faith, both of which are compatible and should be in harmony.
johannine 2 years ago
I hope this will put to rest this idea of a formula or an explanation. I highly suggest reading the entire chapter on the Eucharist. Very moving.
JDZwiers19 3 years ago
I would like to quote the Catechism. Not sure why I didnt before. Paragraph 1333, sentence 1 and 4
"At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christs Body and Blood."
"The signs of bread and wine become, in a way suprassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation."
JDZwiers19 3 years ago
Why not? It pertained to the people reading the explanation at the time, it gave them a better grasp of the Mystery, though admittedly not a full 100% grasp since no one can explain exatcly how it happens. St. Paul uses secular reasoning too in some of his epistles to better explain to his readers the gospel of Christ, I see no reason why the Catholic Church cannot do the same
DeiVerbum777 3 years ago
Yes, when you use Greek philosphy to explain away the presence of the bread and wine...Pastor Lassman
nschaub 3 years ago
And thats a sin to try and explain a tiny bit to others why we believe what we believe?
DeiVerbum777 3 years ago
HI..Yes. I'm afraid they do. Transubstantiation is based on the philosophical categories of Aristotle: Accident and Substance..Pastor Lassman
nschaub 3 years ago
Catholics dont have a forumla, just a word. We consider it one of the greatest mysteries. We just say that it somehow becomes the body and blood of wine. We dont have a scientific or philosophic formula for it.
JDZwiers19 3 years ago
...yet the modern-day Evangelicals do
DeiVerbum777 3 years ago
Amen, and amen, and amen. I know we dont agree on a lot of things, being Catholic and Lutheran, but when it comes to the divinty of Jesus Christ and salvation through Him alone, and Holy Communion (except for the 'transubstantiation' difference) we agree. Thank you for sharing. The Eucharist is a clear biblical/early church teaching, backed up by OT parrallels (Exodus 12) and key Greek words (trogo) that cant help but point to the Eucharist. Martin Luther never denied it.....
DeiVerbum777 3 years ago
Thank you pastor for your teaching. It will come as a surprise to R.C.'s that Lutherans (as well as Episcopalian/Anglicans like me) accept Real Presence, albeit not through the same theological formula as the R.C's.
I'm afraid however that Real Presence remains a "hard sell" for the Baptists and other evangelical "low church" Protestants. I wonder how they explain St.Paul's dire warning about receiving while in sin? I mean if it's only bread and a ceremony St.Paul's words are false.
brassspitoon 3 years ago
The real presence in, with and under the forms of bread and wine is the true biblical doctrine, instituted by Jesus Christ Himself.
It is a great joy to partake the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ!
Very good explanation pastor! God bless you
NorseLuther 3 years ago
you know,, you're not as smart as you think you are.......
nschaub 3 years ago
And you are not as smart as you think you are. Think again. Your god loves blood, and the smell of sacrifices being burned. He can't forgive sin without having his kid commit SUICIDE first. It is a sick story of a father sending his son, to be murdered, then claiming it proves he is loving. It's nothing but a bloody bronze age mythology, right?
ComputerJA 3 years ago
Jesus also didn't live in the Syrian-Palestine bronze age--get your history straight.
johannine 2 years ago
@ johannine
The shedding of blood in the old testament falls in the late bronze age.
But who cares about that, the question is why does a god capable of creating the cosmos need blood sacrifice for anything? How is the shedding of blood the logical mind set of an omni god, and not of the brutal, ignorant, and superstitious bronze age men?
Forgiveness of sins does not require blood sacrifice at all, only if the bible god is to be advertised. Sorry if you missed that, Johannine.
ComputerJA 2 years ago
Good point, ComputerJa, but the bible canon itself wasn't composed until 100 AD for Judaism, and even later for Christianity. If you read the Psalms, you see reflected in there the prophetic and mystical tradition that a true sacrifice to God is not in burnt offerings but in a contrite spirit. Judaism ceased its sacrifices after the destruction of the Temple, and became a rabbinical tradition, concerned with acting for justice.
johannine 2 years ago
@ johannine
Would you please explain to me why a god capable of creating the cosmos needs blood for anything? Show me how the shedding of blood is the logical mind set of an omnipotent god, and not the mind set of brutal, ignorant, superstitious, bronze age savages. If you read the Gospels, the brimstone and the taste of bloody human sacrifices of your pagan superstition will be evident.
ComputerJA 2 years ago
Hahahah (to CIR229, and your subtle attempt to point out the flaw in his interpretive imagery)
johannine 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
good video! my names Angelina, kinda feelin bored if any1 wants to join me on cam or wana chat i will be signed on at __ PLAY-CAM...dot...COM __ my user ID there is Angelina_vmjfdlbqcy chat soon xx its FR33 to j0in! mwah
pseudosocial 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
such a saucy video! my names Paige, kinda feelin bored if any1 wants to join me on cam or wana chat i will be signed on at __ FriendlyFlirts(.COM) __ my user ID there is Paige_ufcgkmvort chat soon xx its FR33 to j0in! mwah
jerseylocal404 3 years ago